Benjamin Bytheway wrote:
> Umm, Ron Paul isn't a protectionist. He's for free trade with everyone, but
> on our terms and not dictated to us by some worldwide organization.
The moment you say "on our terms" then the statement becomes
self-contradictory. Either trade is free or it's not. Even under
current trade agreements it's never free, largely in part because of
*our* terms, our protectionism.
Trade organizations and governing bodies are necessary because of our
unwillingness to trade freely. For example the softwood lumber dispute
with Canada. If we would stop being hypocritical about the trade issue,
then we would have free trade and the governing bodies and arbitration
groups would disappear because they simply wouldn't be needed.
Free trade has always meant whatever we want it to mean. This is a
problem and it sounds like Ron Paul would make it much much worse.
> He
> wouldn't be implementing protectionist tariffs to protect American
> industries. In fact, he's all for trading with places like Cuba, not
> something exactly looked well upon by the UN, WTO, etc.
>> /*
> PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net
> Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug> Don't fear the penguin.
> */
>
--
Michael Torrie
Assistant CSR, System Administrator
Chemistry and Biochemistry Department
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
+1.801.422.5771